FILED 08/24/2021 Shirley Faust CLERK Missoula County District Court STATE OF MONTANA By: Emily__________________ Baze Quentin M. Rhoades DV-32-2021-0001031-CR Deschamps, Robert L III State Bar No. 3969 1.00 RHOADES SIEFERT & ERICKSON PLLC 430 Ryman Street Missoula, Montana 59802 Telephone: (406) 721-9700 Telefax: (406) 728-5838 [email protected] Pro Querente MONTANA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MISSOULA COUNTY STAND UP MONTANA, a Montana Cause No. non-profit corporation; CLINTON DECKER; JESSICA DECKER; Department No. MARTIN NORUNNER; APRIL MARIE DAVIS; MORGEN HUNT; GABRIEL EARLE; ERICK PRATHER; BRADFORD CAMPBELL; MEAGAN COMPLAINT CAMPBELL; AMY ORR and JARED ORR, Plaintiffs, vs. MISSOULA COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ELEMENTARY DISTRICT NO. 1, HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, MISSOULA COUNTY, STATE OF MONTANA; TARGET RANGE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23; and HELLGATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4, Defendants. Plaintiffs, Stand Up Montana, Inc., Clinton Decker, Jessica Decker, Martin NoRunner, April Marie Davis, Morgen Hunt, Gabriel Earl, Erick Prather, Bradford Campbell, Meagan Campbell, Amy Orr, and Jared Orr, for their Complaint against Defendants Missoula County Public Schools, Elementary District No. 1, High School District No. 1, Missoula County, State of Montana; Target Range School District No. 23; and Hellgate Elementary School District No. 4, allege as follows. INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for injunctive relief brought by Plaintiffs on their behalf and on behalf of their minor children. Plaintiffs, the parents of minor children enrolled in Defendants’ schools, seek a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction against Defendants’ mandatory masking rules implemented in their schools as a response to COVID-19. Plaintiffs’ legal bases spring from the Montana and U.S. Constitutions. Under federal constitutional law, Plaintiffs, as parents of minor children, have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children. Under Montana constitutional law, Plaintiffs, as legal guardians of their children, have a right to invoke their children’s fundamental constitutional rights. Defendants’ mask mandates infringe on the rights of Plaintiffs and their children to privacy, dignity, and free 2 expression without the necessary showing of a compelling government interest in doing so. See, Art. II, §§ 4, 10, 15, and 34 Mont. Const. Defendants’ mask mandates are therefore unconstitutional and, to prevent irreparable harm, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Stand Up Montana is a registered Montana non-profit corporation in good standing with its principal place of business in Gallatin County, Montana. Its mission is to encourage Montanans, during the COVID-19 restrictions, to “stand up for the constitutionally protected liberties, to provide resources and support to individuals and businesses who have been discriminated against or harassed by unfair rules and regulations, and to support similar initiatives.” It has a membership of hundreds of individuals, including many in Missoula County who are the parents of children enrolled at Defendants’ schools and who object to the mask mandates described herein. 3. Plaintiffs Clinton Decker and Jessica Decker reside in Missoula County, Montana. They are the parents of children enrolled at Defendant Missoula County Public Schools, Elementary District No. 1, High School District No. 1, Missoula County, State of Montana (MCPS) and at Defendant Hellgate Elementary School District No. 4 (HES). 3 4. Plaintiffs Martin NoRunner and April Marie Davis reside in Missoula County, Montana, and are the parents of a child enrolled in MCPS. 5. Plaintiff Morgen Hunt resides in Missoula County, Montana, and is the parent of a child enrolled in MCPS. 6. Plaintiff Gabriel Earle resides in Missoula County, Montana, and is the parent of a child enrolled at MCPS. 7. Plaintiff Erick Prather resides in Missoula County, Montana, and is the parent of a child enrolled at MCPS. 8. Plaintiffs Bradford Campbell and Meagan Campbell reside in Missoula County, Montana. They are the parents of child enrolled at HES. 9. Plaintiffs Amy Orr and Jared Orr recently had children enrolled in Defendant Target Range School District No. 23 (TRSD), but unenrolled them due to the TRSD mask mandate. The Orrs would like to return their children to TRSD and would do so but for the mask mandate. 10. Defendant MCPS is a public school district located in Missoula, Montana. It consists of one pre-school, one adult learning center, nine elementary schools, three middle schools, four high schools, and one alternative high school. It is governed by a board of trustees who have authorized the conduct challenged in this action. 4 11. Defendant TRSD is a public school district in Missoula County, Montana. It consists of one elementary school, pre-kindergarten through eighth grade. It is governed by a board of trustees who has authorized the conduct challenged in this action. 12. Defendant HES is a public independent elementary school district located in Missoula County, Montana. It consists of one elementary school, pre-kindergarten through eighth grade. It is governed by a board of trustees who has authorized the conduct challenged in this action. 13. Plaintiffs, through counsel, attempted to avoid litigation by formally demanding Defendants to reconsider and reject their mask mandates. According to counsel, Defendants had no response to Plaintiffs’ demands. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. As a court of general jurisdiction, the Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief. 15. The venue is proper before this Court because Defendants are located in Missoula County. 16. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by Title 27, Chapters 8 and 19, Mont. Code Ann., and Rules 57 5 and 65 of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, and the general legal and equitable powers of this Court. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS The Science of Universal Masking 17. U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics show that Covid-19 is not much of a threat to schoolchildren. Its numbers show that more people under the age of 18 died of influenza during the 2018–191 flu season—a season of it labeled of “moderate severity” that lasted eight months—than have died of Covid-19 across more than 18 months.2 18. Both data and science suggest such a mandate for widespread and universal use is not justified or effective. (See, Declaration of Rodney X. Sturdivant, PhD., ¶¶ 42-65 (Aug. 11, 2021), attached hereto as Ex. A.) 19. When the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and public health officials suddenly shifted from the well-established scientific positions about the marginal effectiveness of masks there was little to no new evidence of effectiveness. At that time, the entire justification for the CDC guidelines rested on asymptomatic spread concerns. In the time since, new studies have even cast doubt on how much impact 1 https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html (last visited 24 AUG 21) 2 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm (last visited 24 AUG 2021) 6 asymptomatic people play in transmission. A recent study involving contract tracing of over 3400 close contacts of 391 confirmed cases found only 0.3% attack rate among asymptomatic cases compared to 3.3% for those with mild symptoms (or 10 times less). The rate increases further as symptoms become severe to 5.6% and 6.2% for those with moderate or severe symptoms. A remarkably large study, testing over 10 million people, in Wuhan China found “there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons”. They found 303 cases, all asymptomatic, and traced 1,174 close contacts. (Id., ¶ 43.) 20. The ineffectiveness of masks was well known prior to 2020 as stated in a New England Journal of Medicine perspective from May 2020: “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection… In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” (Id., ¶ 44.) 21. The evidence prior to 2020 is captured in a review by the World Health Organization (WHO). In 2019 they completed a systematic review of the scientific literature for all NPIs. The thorough study found 10 studies, all randomized control trials (RCTs), of sufficient scientific quality for meta-analysis. They concluded that “there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed 7 influenza.” They rated the quality of the evidence as “moderate” – this highest rating of available evidence for any of the 16 NPIs analyzed. Additional studies, particularly in the community settings, were suggested to increase the quality. Two such studies: The Marine Corps study mentioned previously (id., ¶ 40) and the “Danish Mask Study” significantly add to the quality of the literature, specifically in the community setting. (Id., ¶ 45.) 22. Support for mask effectiveness is largely based on laboratory studies. the evidence even in that setting, however, is at best inconclusive. The problem is that cloth and surgical masks allow particles the size of Covid-19 through. A 2009 study of small particles involving 5 different surgical masks concludes for “included particles in the same size range of viruses confirms that surgical masks should not be used for respiratory protection.” A more recent study considered small particles and used human volunteers to test masks. The very best-case mask filtered 70% of particles with others filtering less than 50%. Another study, done even before Covid, measured the filtering efficacy and the size of mask pores particularly, concluding very poor filtering made worse with wear time and washing of the masks. The airborne nature of Covid-19 means that this performance is not effective when exposure is more than brief to the virus. 8 The studies cited here involve surgical masks, likely better than most cloth masks worn by people.